Plan shaping 25-year future of Hespeler Road approved

It’s a roadway that has been referred to as “one of the worst planned road networks in southwestern Ontario.”

A facelift and plan for the next 25-years of development along the Hespeler Road corridor has been approved by Cambridge City Council.

The Hespeler Road Corridor Secondary Plan covers the stretch of roadway from south of Highway 401 through to north of Isherwood Ave and Munch Avenue.

It also includes the area east of Hespeler along Pinebush Road to Stuck Court, and west of Hespeler Road along Eagle Street to the rail line west of Industrial Road.

The path forward now puts a focus on transit use, cycling infrastructure, and parks in a compact urban environment with mixed-use buildings. Those buildings can be as tall as 25-storeys.

“We have concerns when we hear about 25-storey buildings going in neighbourhoods. Hespeler Road is prime and ripe to welcome this kind of development and this kind of investment into our community,” said General Manager for Planning and Growth, Hardy Bromberg.

“We’re talking about policies and we’re asking council to help us shape the policies of how this community is going to grow over the decades to come.”

Bromberg added staff were confident in the final report presented and passed Tuesday night.

“It’s a very important decision but it’s one that we are very prepared for. Investors, builders, property owners need to know how we’re going to grow, and where we’re going to grow.”

The conversation around growth on Hespeler Road was also focused on the impacts of the incoming ION Light Rail Transit through Pinebush, Cambridge Centre Mall and Can-Amera stations.

When it comes to traffic and congestion concerns, the Secondary Plan highlighted the Region of Waterloo’s Integrated Mobility plan which is already looking to focus on Hespeler Road traffic.

Costs around the plan, ring in around $192,000, which will be covered by the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund. Council was warned if the plan was not passed at Tuesday’s meeting, there would be risk of losing that funding.

Although the plan was passed with a vote of 8-1, the conversation latest about an hour, with a handful of amendments voted down.

The one councillor to vote against it was Ward 1 Councillor Helen Shwery, who had concerns the plan wasn’t flexible enough when it came to building density.

“It’s too prescriptive and it doesn’t support I think market demand, and I think putting in specific rules in place will detract some developers and businesses.”

Staff noted council can make changes as needed, on a case-by-case basis.

“If there is a property that might not quite meet that vision, there are different mechanisms to address,” said Bromberg.

The plan presented to council in the spring can be found and read in it’s entirety here.

---